The Arts and Entertainment Work Group is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Biography (arts and entertainment) articles by quality and importance
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs... Specific discipline portals are listed in that section.
William Ely Hill (1887-1962) - Illustrator, created artwork for the book covers for F. Scott Fitzgerald and had a regular entry in the New York tribune along with being published on numerous occasions.
The general outline and collection has been started, but if you would like to expand and organize a discipline, here's what you do. Right below the page heading for the discipline insert this: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Work groups/Division banner}} and save. This will put a rough outline together for you and then you can edit it to conform to your area. See Writers and critics below for an example. If your project grows large enough where it's taking up a good portion of this page, you should probably move it to a subpage of this page.
You might also want to make a Members section for people to join your specific area!
Any article related to this work group should be marked by adding |a&e-work-group=yes to the {{WPBiography}} project banner at the top of its talk page. This will automatically place it into Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles. Articles can be assessed for priority within this work group by using the |a&e-priority= parameter. See Template:WikiProject Biography/doc for detailed instructions on how to use the banner.
Jubileeclipman (talk·contribs) I am interested in taking on UK celebrities with articles that are stubs or otherwise non-standard. Entirely rewrote Fearne Cotton to raise standard and remove fansite tag. I am working on Holly Willoughby which was merely a list plus trivia. Will also work on musicians, all genre, living or dead.
In addition to the existing relying on a single source and vagueness issues (likely due to translation), the information in the article could easily be included onto the existing articles – DIN 1451, Austria (typeface), Tern (typeface) and Road signs in Austria – with the provision of sources, weakening the article's basis.
Deletion was objected, a merged was proposed instead. However, it is not possible to redirect one article to 3 others. Created a topic at WikiProject Typography over 4 months ago with no response. The article has no notability on its own, and is poorly written/explained. EthanL13 | talk22:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just now finished List of national flags of sovereign states, which contains far more information regarding each flag and provides several references on each entry. I do not see a reason for the gallery to continue existing since the flags list I have written contains the same information and then some. I therefore request this article become a redirect to the one I have made. ―Howard • 🌽3322:19, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Side comment/suggestion about the new list since we're here, although not directly relevant to this discussion. The new list is nice for sure, but even on my modestly small laptop screen, I have to scroll over to see the whole thing. The refs (whose column is unnecessary huge for me) could probably go after the name in the first column, and the description is probably a bit overkill, contributing to the formatting issues, and might be more appropriate as alt text for accessibility. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur here. I'd suggest putting the refs in the description rather than the name. It's okay to just say the books are general references rather than footnoting each of them 193 times (WP:OVERREF). Also the newly added Official usage column seems entirely unnecessary, especially with no explanation. What's the difference between ensign and civil ensign? Between state flag and national flag? Why should a reader even care? It's clutter. Reywas92Talk13:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, just glancing the first 10 results of google book search ("mirador azul" "puerto rico" surrealist OR surrealista) it is clear the group is well covered in academic literature, appears well notable. --Soman (talk) 11:17, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This promotional biography of an emerging artist. The article is trying to cobble together notability-by-association. It doesn't matter who or how many well known artists someone has studied with or interviewed or written about or allegedly curated into shows. The article has been ref-bombed mostly with things he's written about others; student newspaper profiles in the Daily Bruin(UCLA); blog-ish PR advertorials such as Cultbytes a "strategic communications agency" (PR agency "online publication"); and user submitted content websites "submit your music!". Delete per WP:PROMO and WP:TOOSOON; does not meet WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 13:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to Saint Amadour. I can't remember how this came to be on my watchlist, possibly due to a previous article of this name that got deleted. If so, that does not seem to have been about the same person. There are potentially four claims to notability made here: As a visual artist, as a musician, as a writer and as a curator. None of those are substantiated. The article seems to be trying to inherit notability from minor connections to notable topics. The sources are poor. Many are just their writing, which provides verifiability that they have written, but proves no notability. The music coverage is minimal and one of the sources is a Tumblr blog. The visual/conceptual arts stuff is even thinner, most are just a single passing reference in coverage of group shows, mere entries on a list. There is potentially a fifth claim to notability in that they are described as an art critic here. What we seem to have here is a person who is trying various different things in and around the art world and who has yet to become notable for any one of them. Getting redirected to a (probably fictional) saint might seem like a bit of a kick in the teeth but it is the right thing to do, at least for now. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:ARTIST. No awards or recognition. Created by a single purpose editor so possible promo. Sources provided merely confirm where she has exhibited and not SIGCOV. This source seems to be the only indepth coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: there are several articles in art magazines about her work and its significance. I added one today that I found. I think she meets criteria 2, 3, and 4d of WP:Artist. Nnev66 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review article improvements. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:40, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Again, please provide a review of sources and any improvements made to the article since its nomination. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics
The Arts and Entertainment Work Group - Writers and critics is a working group of members of the Biography WikiProject dedicated to ensuring quality and coverage of biography articles.
Related Projects
Since biographies are potentially under the purview of almost all WikiProjects, it is important that we work in tandem with these projects. Also, when seeking collaboration on articles, don't neglect to approach WikiProjects that are part of the geographical region your subject is/was in.
Related Portals
Increase the exposure of our work group by nominating our articles for their Portal FA and DYKs. Of course, don't forget the main portal, Portal:Arts
Subject does not meet notability criteria per WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Sources provided are mainly primary, and the ones that aren't are (1) an obituary, (2) Find a Grave, (3) an article about an exhibition of his letters to a pen pal, (4) a couple of notices about a tribute by one of his students. None of the sources are about him in any significant way. ...discospinstertalk01:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I should've submitted for review. There are three newspaper articles concerning his work or renditions of it, two concerning performances of his poems by Northwestern, and another about an exhibit of his work after his death. Though I can easily link others. He seems to be congruent with a notable academic or creative figure. Hypnosef (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would respectfully disagree that none of the sources pertain to him in any significant way.
Source #5 fourteeneastmag.com details "the touring exhibition Poet to Poet: Living Letters, a 13-year correspondence between poet Abe Louise Young and poet Alan Shefsky. Their friendship was preserved in loose leaf papers of written word before Shefsky died from a brain tumor." The source explicitly pertains to his being a poet and his dying of a brain tumor. 2. #6 chicago tribune, details the two's friendship, their long correspondence, and his death from cancer. 3. prizer arts and letters, states that this touring exhibition travelled to Austin, Texas. 4. Sources 8&9 are his poems published in a well-known literary journal. The find a grave and obit were simply to establish birth and death years as they were less readily available than other information. I have also added ten different publications that thank Shefsky by name, though many more exist. These should be sufficient to establish his lasting impact in the academic community. He was a very well-known figure at Northwestern for years.
I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this previously-unreferenced article about a Romanian actor, journalist, writer and university lecturer. I have added three references, but all are mentions of his name only. According to the article in the Romanian Wikipedia (also unreferenced), he has written 29 articles, but I can't find reviews of them. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NJOURNALIST, etc. Tacyarg (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There doesn't appear to be significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. None of the links in the article help establish notability. toweli (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a subjective opinion coming from a lack of awareness of Canada's television entertainment scene. Sebastian Cluer is one of the most well known and in-demand directors in his country, having directed, produced and developed many notable shows that have had massive success both in his home country and abroad. Lots of them are on airlines, including Still Standing, Bollywed, Property Brothers...and the list goes on. These along with receiving many nominations and wins, particularly with The Canadian Screen Awards, which are the country's equivalent to the Oscars and Golden Globes combined.
Sebastian was also instrumental in the success of the hugely popular and successful show Kenny vs. Spenny and has been appearing in commentaries alongside Kenny Hotz as of late.
Keep. Article does need improvement, but there are far too many Gemini Award and Canadian Screen Award nominations and victories listed here to deem him "non-notable" at all. That's top-level national awards, equivalent to Emmys and Oscars, which is a notability lock even if the sourcing still needs improvement, and the sourcing for that kind of stuff most certainly can be improved. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nominations suggest notability, but there just isn't enough coverage about him. I had to dig to even bring this up [9]. An interview that doesn't quite help notability. Delete for lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite being a prolific writer of op-eds and magazine articles, Fontaine is not himself the subject of any WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. (The closest example is a press release-based WP:ROUTINEarticle about his appointment as president of CNAS.) As a result, there's no pass of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. No other SNGs appear to apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable academic whose credentials do not verify, and for whom most of the claims in the text are uncited. Even if there were sources he would not pass notability. Somehow the original nomination has got mangled so I am doing a second nomination. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely shocking that some ignorant (and perhaps ill intentioned) person is trying to delete the article about Canada's foremost expert on nuclear energy issues - who has worked for over 50 years to raise awareness of the risks of nuclear energy and nuclear waste. He is the most recognized activist on these issues in Canada and is in demand around the world as a speaker by groups fighting nuclear pollution. I'd be happy to provide many sources, but I'm completely unfamiliar with Wikipedia editing and would prefer to provide sources/background to an administrator. When the commenter above says "most of the claims in the text are uncited," he seems to be holding this article to a higher standard that hundreds of articles I've encountered (as a Wikipedia reader). When he says, "Even if there were sources he would not pass notability," he is revealing his profound ignorance about Dr. Edwards, his world-wide reputation and his life's work. What concerns me even more, though, is that there could be malicious intent here, trying to suppress the profile of a noted activist on a controversial topic. PLEASE - administrators, immediately look into what is going on here and put a stop to it if it is indeed malicious. Hundreds of Canadian activists are watching this closely and frankly, Wikipedia's credibility is on the line. PaceVerde (talk) 19:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This topic should definitely not be deleted. Dr. Edwards is an expert in nuclear energy issues and has a worldwide reputation. He is an excellent speaker, is extremely knowledgeable and is in demand around the world for his expertise. He is a prominent Canadian who should be represented in Wikipedia. I agree with the previous post, that Wikipedia should be sure that there isn't a nefarious person trying to shut down the discussion about nuclear energy. 45.78.126.149 (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)— 45.78.126.149 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Content copied over from earlier nomination: 'Hello, I am concerned about the designation of Gordon Edwards' article as an article for "deletion". I viewed of list of multiple recent edits to his article, which appear to be done by a possible 'bot'. Would an administrator please check whether this is the case or not? Many thanks, Nancy Covington MD' 08:09, September 2, 2024— Preceding unsigned comment added by Covingni (talk • contribs) 13:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC) — Covingni (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Content copied from talk page of earlier nomination: "I have followed Dr. Edwards for years and find his information on nuclear to be very helpful. The article on Dr. Edwards is factual. This article should remain on Wikipedia. It is concerning that someone, who appears to be pro-nuclear, has asked for the article on Dr. Edwards to be deleted, as it is perhaps bothersome to them in all its accuracy? Wanda Laurin (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)" — Wanda Laurin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment For the closer: This "2nd nomination" was created because User:@Daffydavid: tagged the article for deletion, but (presumably) mistakenly started the discussion at the article's talk page. User:@Covingni:'s keep !vote (which was copied here already by Ldm1954) was the first edit to the "1st nomination" page. which is why there is a "2nd nomination." Daffydavid's rationale for placing the deletion tag was as follows: The only reference attached that appears to be valid indicates the person to be unqualified. Daffydavid (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC) and I would interpret this as a delete !vote for the purposes of this "2nd" nomination. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)01:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is better, but there are still serious issues which it appears led to the original AfD by @Daffydavid. For instance, source [1] is used to verify that he is both President & co-founder of CCNR, but in fact it only states that he is President. While your sourcing is better, there are still too many unsourced claims and it remains very weak on SIGCOV. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To me it does not matter if someone is pro- or anti- nuclear, QANON or a judge. The bar is the same and is in WP:N. That several WP:Single-purpose accounts make rude comments about Daffydavid or me is not going to change anything. As always, this is a discussion and proof of notability by reputable secondary sources is unconditionally required. This is of course at a higher level for living people. Just having a few mentions is not now and never has been enough. Maybe you can find enough, to date this page fails WP:PROVEIT by a long, long way.Ldm1954 (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You need to ask that of @Daffydavid since he made the nomination, albeit with a technical glitch as @GhostOfDanGurney indicates above (a best guess) -- but I do support the nomination. @Daffydavid clearly tried to improve it then gave up, I see no indication of ill-will on his part. I of course did the routine Google check, not finding enough for Wikipedia:Notability of a BLP. You can find the SIGCOV to prove me wrong, I never claim to be infallible. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Strange...in Wikipedia:Notability I find a whole subsection entitled: "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." It points out that: "before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility that sources may still exist even if their search failed to uncover any." For this subject, there are ample sources that come up on a simple Google search including articles, quotes in mainstream media, guest appearances on major Canadian television and radio networks, etc. I am working on identifying the best ones to add and will do so as soon as possible. Please note Dr. Edwards is not a university professor and doesn't claim to be. He is an independent expert. PaceVerde (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC) — PaceVerde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Uses quotes from the subject, but the story is not at all about the subject, but rather the Canadian government potentially choosing a site on Lake Huron to store nuclear waste
Simply lists the subject's name as a faculty member.
✘No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
As this shows, the subject does not come close to meeting GNG. Using google, I found a couple of directories of articles he has written for The Hill Times and National Observer, as well as more articles similar to the one by Detroit Free Press in which he is quoted in his role as a scientist who advocates against nuclear power, but like Detroit Free Press, is not about the subject. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)00:10, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biography of a Buddhist teacher fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG. The sourcing (both in the article and in WP:BEFORE search) is to Burbea's own writing and works, as well as sources not independent from him (eg the Hermes Amara Fdn). No WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable, secondary sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak article, with references that do not even offer much confidence. If no other sources are found to support it, it should be deleted. It is not so much a question of whether it contributes or not, but rather that it has a very weak documentary base. Alon9393 (talk) 02:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing notable about this man. Most of the source from the newspaper cited has nothing to do with him except ref 1. Naijaloaded and 9jaflaver has nothing to do with significant neither reliable as they were only just talking about his music and the rest source are just mere websites. And to the article creator “How did you come inform of the biography” knowing all this information without any source giving a clue of who the subject is? Gabriel(……?)18:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : One more question to the article creator. Who is “Muradmomi12”, a user who posted a fake template on your talk page Here claiming to have accepted the article. Is that your second account?. Remember lying won’t save you. So you can just be honest and things be sort out properly per Wikipedia policy--Gabriel(……?)18:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wish to state categorically that I have no affiliation with the subject whatsoever. Can you check my edit history and particularly, the articles I have written and contributed to here? They cut across different interests. I am mostly interested in seeing major subjects/articles from Africa feature on Wikipedia. I am not ashamed to have that interest, but apart from that, I have no conflicts of interest in writing about the subjects I choose. I am neither paid nor employed by any of the subjects I have written or contributed to.
About @Muradmomi12 , you need to check his edit and contribution history to know he has been warned severally about vandalism. I had no need for his approval or acceptance of my article. I am an Autoconfirmed user and have the user rights to move articles directly to mainspace. So I have no need for his/her help. If you check his history, you would notice he has been banned or blocked from wikipedia. If you compare my edit history and @Maradmomi12, our interests do not align. i would urge you rather to also check his history with yours and see if there are similarities.
On a final note, i sense that your nomination of this article for deletion was not in good faith. It appears this is vandalism and I hereby warn you to desist. Thank You. Cfaso2000 (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your opinion on my article. The notability of the subject is proven by many mainstream independent articles as follows:
(1) A review in major Nigerian newspapers, of his books. Four major/independent sources reviewed his book, Swim or Sink: Policy dynamics in challenging environments. His biography was also cited by these newspapers (references 1, 4, 5, and 20).
(2) His Novel, Dead on Arrival(2013) was also featured in 2013 by Linda Ikeji(ref 17)and Bella Naija (ref 18) and also referenced in ref 1, 4, 5 and 20.
(3) He was recognized by the British Council in 2017 (ref 12, 13)
(4) He won a major award here (ref 14)
(5) He also won another major award here from Alliance for Financial Inclusion here (ref 11)
(6) He is also a musician and has an extensive discography (ref 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27). i have only included these for brevity sake. I found so many other songs he has put out.
(7) His financial inclusion work is also covered in major independent newspapers here (ref 7,8,9,10).
I hope this helps you to situate and agree with his notability.
Finally, please can you check the history of edits to give you an idea of where this article has evolved from?
On a final note, i sense that your nomination of this article for deletion was not in good faith. It appears this is vandalism and I hereby warn you to desist. Thank You. This clearly now shows you definitely don't know what Wikipedia policy is all about neither the good faith or vandalism. You joined wikipedia 9 months ago with less than 200 edits but thats by the way. You stated “Muradmomi12” is into a different interest of editing from yours and has been vandalising but I am still surprise how he found your talk page and to post a fake approve article template of your article, since you both are of different interest, but thats by the way since you already stated you don't know such editor. When I saw that it actually looked like a deceive to the public that one of your article was accepted. So I thought it might be from your handwork to deceive the community but it's fine. Meanwhile, that doesn't still change the fact why I nominated this article. It still doesn't meet the general notability guideline. His works are not notable and this is the only thing I can found about his subject novel which still has nothing to do with him Dead on arrival. Gabriel(……?)21:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I urge you to do a check of my refutations to your nomination for deletion in points 1-7 above and go through piece by piece and make your conclusions. I address your points in this latest response as follows:
(a) The fact that I joined Wikipedia 9 months ago and have only 200 edits is not relevant to the issue here;
(b) I have no business with how @muradmomi12 found my talk page to post a fake "approve" article template. Wikipedia is a public place and anyone is entitled to roam the space and indulge in their interests, but that "indulgence" should be ethical, free of conflicts of interest, and not infringing on the rights or freedoms of other users to contribute to the stock of knowledge here.
(c) Why does it look like a deception to the public that my article was accepted? because I am just only 9 months with less than 200 edits or what? Please check my edit history and other articles and subjects I have written about. Paul Oluikpe is not the first or only article or subject I have written about.
(d) Your assertion "it still doesnt meet general notability guideline" has no proof, but merely an arbitrary/sweeping rationalization. Please can you be specific about the sources, and can you refute piece by piece no 1-7 points which i made above? Have you actually read the sources ? This can help.
(a) The fact that I joined Wikipedia 9 months ago and have only 200 edits is not relevant to the issue here; If you had stick with the Article wizard for creation policy, your article of 2023 Philip Ikeazor won't have been nominated for an AFD by Star Mississippi. Meanwhile, I still stand by my reason and will allow other editors do their research. Have a nice day and no further response from me to you. Gabriel(……?)21:50, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Source 2 is his words at WSBI’s Scale2Save event, and likely, a press release. Source 3 is same as above and wouldn't tell us that he "works on financial inclusion". Tech finance, source 4, lacks byline and editorial standard, hence the post appears like a sponsored post. The awards are minor ad unrecognisable per WP:ANYBIO except the one from the British Council. But their count still doesn't make this article meet WP:GNG. Almost all the sources linked to Dead on Arrival, his book, are paid publication and some unreliable including Linda Ikeji's blog. Ofcourse, Nigerian world News doesn't perceive editorial policy and list works are by admin or individual. In light of WP: NMUSICIAN, the article's segment "musical work" were citations from unreliable sources per WP:NGRS. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!16:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your view. Here are my responses to your post.
(1) The phrase "likely a press release" stays in the realm of speculation, and not a certainty. We shouldn't make conclusions on that. The issue is, does it cover the subject significantly? and is it an independent source?
(2)Sources 2, 3, 7,8,9,10 all state categorically that he works in financial inclusion and at the central bank. The sources are Thisday, Independent, Daily Trust, Business Day, TechCabal-all sources identified in the Wikipedia list of reliable sources from Nigeria (Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources
(4) Sources 6, 11,12, and 13 reference the awards he won. These are credible sources (Loughborough University, British Council, The Alliance for Financial Inclusion and The Punch).
(5)Sources 1,4,5 and 20 covered extensively his book Swim or Sink: Policy Dynamics in Challenging Environments. They also ran a biography on him and also mention where he works. These sources are Nigerian Guardian, The Tribune and This Day all listed here Wikipedia:WikiProject Nigeria/Nigerian sources
(6) You said "Almost all the sources linked to Dead on Arrival, his book, are paid publication and some unreliable". This is inaccurate. Sources 1,4,5 and 20 mention the novel, Dead on Arrival plus Linda Ikeji's coverage and Bella Naija coverage and reviews.
Delete. I thought at first that he would pass WP:NAUTHOR with reviews of his book ([10], [11], [12]) in three sources rated generally reliable by WikiProject Nigeria, but in reading the sources, it seems two of them are based on one, or they are all based on an underlying WP:PRESSRELEASE. Look in particular at the final few paragraphs, which are in some cases nearly word-for-word identical. As a result, I do not believe these to be truly independent reviews and thus no pass of NAUTHOR. I also see no WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. As for the awards, they do not qualify under WP:ANYBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriel601@Dclemens1971 and @SafariScribe I have overhauled the article and also provided some additional independent reference. Can you kindly check again and your feedback would be most appreciated. I will continue to search for more sources and improve the article. Thank You. Cfaso2000 (talk) 12:36, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RedirectDelete - Seems to only be known on YouTube which is not considered a reliable source. Those should be deleted. If better sourcing can be found, please bring it to the table. Netherzone (talk) 22:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article, which began under the title Fictioner-revisers and was later renamed Reworked fiction, is about the idea of an author changing and republishing a novel work of fiction. None of the editors engaged on the talk page have found any reliable sources that talk about that idea as a thing, not even the article creator. I have found the term "reworked fiction" being used, but only as a description of a specific book. It isn't an idea or concept that anyone seems to have written about. This idea doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG for a stand-alone article. Edited to clarify subject of article per comment below. Schazjmd(talk)20:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the article (which would be more accurately titled "Author-reworked fiction") is about authors who have reworked their works of fiction, not only about authors who have reworked their novels. Of the three authors, and their works, cited by me in the article (Mary Shelley, Walt Whitman, Edward Fitzgerald), only Mary Shelley was a novelist.
On further thought, given that the term "fiction" tends to be used in a sense exclusive of poetry, and that two of the three authors listed here were poets, a more apt title might be something like "Author-reworked literature".
Delete – As I posted on the talk page, I agree with Rwood128 and Schazjmd. This article has no reputable source for the term. The examples (they have since been deleted) are works that have been revised, but do not validate the term or indicate that it is important. Any good work of fiction has been revised multiple times.—Anita5192 (talk) 21:39, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article's examples of authors and works were deleted by Rwood128. I have now restored them.
Obviously a serious practitioner of any art, such as the writing of fiction, revises his work before initially putting it before the public. That was not what I had in mind when I decided to write this article. Its topic is previously published works of fiction that have been reworked by their authors.
This article, if given a chance to show its fuller potential, is likely to interest readers who care about literature and authors.
If I may offer a suggestion, have you considered writing an essay about this topic and publishing it somewhere? I'm actually interested in the history and practice of authors reworking previously published stories. The problem for Wikipedia is that this isn't a topic that's resulted in sufficient citations to prove notability here. But since no one has really written about this topic, that presents you an opportunity to be one of the first to do so. But what you write just can't be published here. SouthernNights (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SouthernNights: Thanks for your constructive suggestion. Perhaps, when I have the leisure to adequately research the topic and find a suitable reliable-source publication, I'll try my hand at an essay. In the meantime, I will happily cede priority to someone else who takes up this intriguing topic.
I'd agree that this is just the wrong venue for the information. A Wikipedia article needs citable sources that define the scope of the topic. There's no published source to say how and why a piece of reworked fiction differs from any other edition of the book. I wish you luck if you pursue the topic in another venue. It's interesting, we just don't have a good way to cover it right now. Rjjiii (talk) 08:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a totally originally term without any citations or literature to support notability. A search in the Wikipedia Library, for example, returned zero hits on articles or coverage for the term.--SouthernNights (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does appear the term reworked is used fairly frequently. See, for example: "Novelists rework Shakespeare's King Lear to explore" [14]. But this is different from what this article is concerned with. Angela Carter famously "reworked" fairy tales. And classical mythology is constanrly being reworked. Rwood128 (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can work out, the scholarship that happens on this topic is what we cover at textual criticism. If sourcing for this article exists it would likely be from the discipline of scholarly editing, but they seem to just assume that all literature exists in multiple versions, and they don't seem to consider multiple published versions to be any different from other kinds of texts. Even with a fair bit of digging I haven't turned up anything that makes a general statement about reworked fiction / multi-published-variant works (nor a term for them!), just scattered textual criticism of individual works with that kind of history. I don't think there's any need for a merge or a redirect here. These are completely different from derivative works, since those introduce a new author, so I particularly don't think that redirect would be appropriate. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She's evidently done commendable work, such as the VA program, but I can't find significant coverage of her, or reviews of her books in reliable sources, to meet WP:NAUTHOR, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. She's also worked with some notable people, but on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. Wikishovel (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Filled to the brim with primary sources and not enough independent sources to sustain a biography; the single book review is not enough. Appearing on podcasts is not a criterion for notability. Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject appears to be a non-notable individual, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources that establish notability. Most of the sources cited in the article and on the talk page are passing mentions, interviews, primary, routine coverage, or hearsay, none of which provide in-depth coverage. The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, and WP:NAUTHOR. Additionally, off-wiki evidence suggests potential undisclosed paid editing and sockpuppetry. GSS💬13:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Xegma Do you really research on topics or just go on voting 'delete' at AfDs? Did you check the talk page of this article? There are significant coverage in China Daily and The Telegraph and all are present in the talk page. Even nominator failed to do WP:BEFORE. Unless it is a UPE issue, there is no reason to delete. It is a Keep. Hitro talk21:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The articles you are referring to seem to be paid promotional pieces, structured as interviews, which often include sections like "bio" and "CV" at the end of the article—something rarely found in genuine editorial news. It's a common feature of sponsored content. Additionally, the Telegraph article lacks an author byline, which raises questions about whether it was even produced by their editorial team. GSS💬03:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The China Daily article, the one I am referring to, was written by Andrew Moody. I hope you are not implying that Andrew Moody, a renowned journalist and recipient of the Friendship Medal (China) from the Chinese government, was just an editor of paid promotional pieces.
The Telegraph article, which is almost 16 years old, appears to be written by Dominic White and must have been published on the old format of the website of The Telegraph which was significantly different from current one. Please check the other articles of same years, you won't find author bylines.
I see that this BLP article was created on Wikipedia in 2008 and being nominated for deletion now due to some recent UPE activities. IMO, it's more appropriate to restore the best version of the article rather than delete it entirely. If you have a case that this has been a UPE product from the start then I'll rest my case. Hitro talk15:45, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HitroMilanese, I respect your expertise, but I must point out that all the articles you've mentioned are essentially interviews, which do not meet the standards of independent sources required by WP:GNG. For instance, the China Daily article explicitly states in the second paragraph, "Steve Tappin says," while the Telegraph article includes phrases like "But Tappin, whom I meet" and "Talking to him, it almost seems..." Similarly, the South China Morning Post piece follows the same pattern. These sources rely heavily on hearsay and fail to meet the criteria for WP:IS.
Regarding the absence of a byline in The Telegraph, I managed to find many articles, both older and from the same time period (even 2008), with proper author attribution, such as this. It's unfair to say the byline is missing simply because it could have been published in an older format of the website, where bylines were not prominently displayed.
Additionally, the article was created by a single-purpose account (SPA) with no contributions outside this topic. Given the subject's history of hiring freelancers to update his article, it is highly likely that the SPA either has a conflict of interest or was hired to create this article. GSS💬06:15, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I am posting on behalf of Steve Tappin, so I assume my vote would not count, but I just wanted to bring to your attention that Mr. Tappin meets the criteria for WP:AUTHOR, WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. As WP:AUTHOR, if there are multiple reviews of his work he would qualify. Below are some links to his book reviews
In addition WP:BASIC states that “If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability;” Tappin has over 40 articles online as you can also see some posted in the tal page. Also the following article is in depth:
Finally, as per WP:ENT he would qualify because he was the host of BBC TV show CEO GURU for a long time - over two years - and has been on at least 30 episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzsoth (talk • contribs) 23:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the sources presented above? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoristalk!05:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering, link provided are not neutral and independent. Turkish sources are not adequate to make the article pass GNG. I examined all of the links as a Turkish user. Best wishes. KadıMessage07:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Do you mind if I ask for clarification about why it's been nominated for deletion? Is it because many of the references also refer to her company, rather than just her personally? I had assumed (perhaps wrongly) that because she is the founder and CEO of a global HR company which has seen rapid growth post COVID, and the founder of the industry on which its based (employer of record industry which allows companies to easily hire people all over the globe), that her notability would be inherently tied to the company's performance and notability. I'd be grateful for your clarification and guidance. Cheers, Kate. KWriteReturn (talk) 05:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KWriteReturn: This is a WP:BLP and consensus that is long established states that that person is not the company. Notabilty is not inherited from any other entity and there is nothing here to indicate why this person is notable. Looking at the first seven, in fact the 14 references. These are a mix of routine company news about employment, non-bylined paid-for articles, press-releases, funding, merging, expansion and acquisition news. It is all routine news. There is no WP:SECONDARY coverage to verify per WP:V that she is notable. It states in the WP:BLP policy "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources.". There is nothing here. Nothing. scope_creepTalk06:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, because there are No allegations of notability, nor reliable sources, for this BLP. Look, in 2024, claiming that someone is a CEO and therefore automatically deserves a Wikipedia article, is untenable. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit11:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've tried .ch websites only in a search, and can only find what are brief biographical profiles on company websites. Nothing to suggest notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This Wikipedia article appears to have been created by a dubious source. I have added significant factual corrections and citations to improve this article. ChrisK5566 (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b. Nothing in terms of WP:SIGCOV. The only person advocating to keep the article is the subject himself, who likely paid for the article to be created in the first place given the author was blocked for UPE. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no clear evidence of notability. The subject has won three obscure prizes: that’s it. I also suspect paid editing: the article is by a new account, with links to google.pk. I would imagine that someone from Pakistan whose very first article is about a random Romanian poet was paid to publish. BiruitorulTalk13:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t see any sources in English to support WP:AUTHOR. The subject has written multiple books but I see no in-depth reviews, just online bookshops and Wikipedia mirrors. Mccapra (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources on the page. Fails WP:NBIO. Fails WP:NAUTHOR, who is not widely cited by peers or successors. As Author and Yoga instructor, subject has not created a significant or well-known work and I cannot find subject's work in multiple independent periodical articles or reviews, or of an independent and notable work. Fails WP:GNG too. RangersRus (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources for the article and there is no ground for deleting this page. Lack of contribution does not necessitate deletion of a page. Such a practice will only contribute to removal of information about the lesser known people. I strongly oppose the deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Versatilegeek (talk • contribs) 07:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the objection that “there are sources” my response as nominator is that I don’t doubt that the subject is the author of multiple books. What there is not is anything that demonstrates notability. We don’t allow bio articles sourced almost entirely to online shopping sites with dead links. In addition not a single detail of the subject’s life is even verifiable based on the refs in the article or anything else I can find in English. I don’t think it’s acceptable to retain an entirely unverified bio on the strength of a claim that “there are sources.” Mccapra (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you say, sources don’t have to be in English. They can be in any language but if they exist this discussion is the place to share them. Mccapra (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Delete - as above, clearly promotional content relating to a non-notable person. Furthermore, use of “expert” in disambiguation in article title clearly biased and inappropriate. Elshad (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this should be on LinkdIn, not a supposed encylopædia. It’s essentially an advert for a self declared “expert” fishing for media appearances. 141.195.160.217 (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was only created in August 2023, her media appearances long predate that - this[17] is from 2015. I think it's important that media pundits have articles, it enables everyone to easily look at their credentials and assess their motivations. Orange sticker (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"easily look at their credentials and assess their motivations" Where she works already comes up on every article about her lol. Why would I need a Wikipedia page for this? Tweedle (talk) 20:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly not autobiographical as has been alleged - the creating editor, @Starklinson:, although they have chosen to remain as a redlinked editor without a userpage, has created and edited a wide range of articles over seven years (in contrast to the nominator of this AfD who appears to be proposing this AfD as their first edit). Appears to be a notable expert in the field, cited in many sources. The disambiguation, needed to distinguish her from Z G (actress), could perhaps be "(migration specialist)" to avoid any perceived subjectivity in "expert", so perhaps Keep and move. PamD08:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Not sure about "advocate". She describes herself on LinkedIn as "migration policy specialist". I think I'd still go with "(migration specialist)", which covers a wider range of activity than "advocate" but avoids the possible puffery of "expert". The category Category:Experts on refugees, which was created in 2015, is slightly odd, with no parent category in a "people by occupation" tree. It's difficult to find a descriptor which fits someone employed in a field, rather than various "activists" categories or disambiguators. PamD18:03, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence she is a migration 'specialist' or expert. This appears to be a confusion of one sided activism with actual non-partisan knowledge. Working for a pro-immigration ngo for asylum seekers is hardly expertise and this characterisation favours open border policy which is contentious in the public realm. Must be deleted and replaced with something like 'activist' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A10:D582:D18:0:AC59:B40E:AD1E:937B (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep surprised to see this as I recognised the name immediately, has appeared regularly on news programmes and is referred to as an expert as references and news search show. Orange sticker (talk)
Comment I noticed how this was nominated by, and many of the votes are by, new users who have made no other contributions to the project so searched Twitter and it seems the subject of this article made a tweet yesterday that received a lot of attention and then Twitter users brought attention to her Wikipedia page. I've looked to see if there is an appropriate template to flag this AfD but can't find one, but it seems to be this has been nominated in bad faith Orange sticker (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that we don't allow a brand-new editor to create an article in mainspace, but we do allow them to create an AfD. Perhaps this should be reconsidered? PamD11:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PamD and @Orange sticker, I've added a {{notavote}} notice. However, I must note that the first and third editors to !vote delete after nomination are editors who have been on Wikipedia 19 years and 9 years respectively, so while there are some IPs voting and the article was nominated by a very new user, I don't think it's completely accurate to state that many of the votes are by new users. TarnishedPathtalk12:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath Yes but: did you see the editing history of the 19-year editor? 4 edits since 2019, of which one to their user page, one to their talk page. Not a very active editor. The 9-year editor does seem to be a regular contributor on a range of topics. PamD13:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I do agree that it's highly unusual when a day old account makes such a nomination and then is followed by some IPs participating, I really don't think that's enough to make judgments about longstanding editors regardless of their recent history. TarnishedPathtalk13:12, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think rather than back or forth about who is editing perhaps engaging with the substance here would be preferable - to qualify as an ‘expert’, you would presumably need well read academic publications and so on. Every Think Tank employee in the U.K. doesn’t have a Wikipedia page, even if they are occasionally cited in the press. The subject has no published books, academic papers, etc; this is clearly below the threshold of noteworthy-ness. Plus the article is promotional in tone and I strongly suspect some connection, financial or otherwise, between the main editor and the subject 2A01:CB06:B852:BE75:69B1:C245:F364:C83B (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Activity level is not a requirement for a users vote to be considered legitimate. I find your arguments in this discussion to be highly suspect in their motivation, as you appear to be attempting to undermine the legitimacy of the vote rather than participating in the actual discussion. Badharlick (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is extremely bad etiquette to assume bad faith as you are. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, provided they follow the rules set out in the policy. It does not exist for cabals of users to gatekeep others from contributing. Badharlick (talk) 05:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thank you, @PamD:. I only put (migration expert) because I didn't know what else to call her - that's how she's often referred to by the British press. I don't think 'expert' is necessarily biased, it just means she's done significant research on the topic. And I don't think 'activist' quite fits. However, if anyone has a better idea for the title, I'd be open to that. – Starklinson 13:13 UTC
ALSO, Wikipedia has a category Category:Experts on refugees, suggesting the language of 'expert' is not considered too partial for Wikipedia. I would also like to make it very clear that I have never received payment for my work on Wikipedia, nor have I ever made a page for someone as a favour. I know none of these people personally. – Starklinson 21:43 UTC
Delete: Appears in various media as a subject expert, but I don't find much coverage about this person. Source 2 is a "30 under 30 list" in a PR item. The BBC sources is an interview where she talks about things. Source 14 is ok-ish. Oaktree b (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As PamD explains, the accusation of autobiography doesn't hold water. And while some of the sources are interviews or trivial, there are multiplesources that are prose (not interviews) and that focus on Gardner as a person (are not trivial). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 11:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those articles constitute WP:SIGCOV. They are WP:ROUTINE coverage of her in her capacity as an employee of her organization. The National article in particular is primarily composed of her quotations. The only material we could extract on her encyclopedically is that she worked for the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While it is difficult to imagine that consensus will be achieved on this one, there is clearly enough interest in this discussion to give it another try.
Note: Important procedural issues have been raised here, such as Pam's observation about allowing new editors to create AfDs but not articles in mainspace. That may need to be discussed elsewhere. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DoczillaOhhhhhh, no!19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say anything in WP:SIGCOV about interviews not counting? Although I agree the BBC one probably wouldn't for notability I think it's evidence of expertise (or why would they interview her?) I would also count the PRWeek 30 under 30 article (yes, references like these are a bit promotional but I'd still count it). In addition to The National reference noted above, the following references in the article also have more significant coverage:
Smith, Ginny (8 February 2024). "Defenders of Democracy: Zoe Gardner". Sussex Bylines. (I don't know how reliable it is but it has editorial oversight)
Thanks for the WP:INTERVIEW link as I hadn't seen that - it reads to me that interviews are OK if the interviewer is an established journalist or at least independent of the subject. I don't know Sussex Bylines so can't tell what the situation is there. I tend to include articles for notability that have at least a few sentences about the person provided there are multiple other sources, which there appear to be here. This one may be an edge case in that regard. Nnev66 (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I voted delete on the original listing and I'd just like to clarify my vote now that this has been relisted. As far as I understand this is basically a spokesperson for a few NGOs (most notably Asylum aid and the European Council on Refugees and Exiles), who has had some occasional past media coverage as part of her role as a spokesperson for an NGO. Seems pretty clear to me that this is non-notable, unless we should start creating articles for every spokesperson on the basis they they've appeared in some media coverage as part of their job. Flyingfishee (talk) 17:02, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There seems substantial disagreement over whether the sources are or are not sufficient to establish notability. A detailed analysis of available sources would be a great deal more helpful than discussion of who is making arguments or why. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SeraphimbladeTalk to me11:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources appear to be blogs (Brexit Spot), or paid PR opportunities (30 under 30 - you buy a listing in these, its like a 'best european xyz') and are commercial work, aimed to promote the media career of Zoe Gardner. The one or two non-blog / podcast sources, a single mention in Thompson Reuters and one Huffington Post article, do not meet the criteria for significance. Zoe is not an academic - she hasn't finished her PhD, and appears to have no cited publications. So she is not an academic expert, and neither do most early career academics have wikipedia pages. She has appeared once or twice in the press as a talking head, mostly in extremely small blogs that do not meet the thresholds for significance or realiability. Some of these 'sussex news'? appear to be miniscule local blogs.
I appreciate the points about new users recommending deletion, but I do not see how in this case any other decision could be appropriate. Wikipedia isn't LinkedIn, and shouldn't exist to promote media careers that are not already well established, especially not with misleading language which implies Zoe is an academic expert or has published books on the topic. I do not see any compelling arguments to keep the article.
Regarding PamD's points about the creator of the article having made many edits - if you look through them, they are all of early stage professionals, actors, media figures and so on, and the institutions they work for. They are clearly working on an agency basis, dealing with little known authors, actors and media commentators. A thorough review of recent edits makes the commercial nature of their work obvious. I do not think this is a credible argument to keep the article, which is clearly suspect. Ieusuiarnaut (talk) 11:40, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is leaving draft articles online to show to clients to confirm they are happy with them. He's even left 'draft' in the title! This is blatant commercial misuse of Wikipedia by a media professional. All of these articles should be closely reviewed. Ieusuiarnaut (talk) 11:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ieusuiarnaut As you have only been an editor since 21 August you may not be familiar with the concept of "Draft", which is a standard way in which many editors choose to work on an article before it is ready for "main space". See WP:DRAFT for more information. Your accusation that @Starklinson: is an undisclosed paid editor is a serious WP:Personal attack. I invite them to respond to it here, and suggest that you become more familiar with Wikipedia's policies and practices before accusing any other editors of malpractice. PamD12:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @PamD:. I would like to reiterate – I have never received payment for my work on Wikipedia and nor have I ever made a page as a favour. I was recently invited by @Ipigott: to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red because I happen to create a lot of biographies of women. My recent focus has been on writers (particularly in the UK), though I don't limit myself to any one topic. Starklinson (talk) 18:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can see your very first edits involved a similar argument over an (eventually deleted?) page for a minor YouTuber https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Safiya_Nygaard_(2nd_nomination) - you have since continued to work almost exclusively on pages for minor media figures, both men and women. Regardless of whether this is a bizarre labour of love or paid work, Zoe's page does not include enough relevant, high-quality sources, she appears to hold no important public position, and is not widely known despite a few brief media appearances. The article, particularly but not only in its describing her as an 'expert', is written in a promotional style. It would not be out of place in a corporate biography or Linkedin page. The most substantial source, 'Sussex Byline', does not even have its own wikipedia page. It is not appropriate to give every early career think tank employee in the UK their own wikipedia page. Ieusuiarnaut (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I accept assessing the article on its own merit, I do not accept WP:Personal attacks. Pulling up one of the first articles a user ever worked on over 6 years ago (the subject of which now has a Wikipedia page anyway) is not an argument and not how Wikipedia works. The vast majority of the articles I create get approved without issue, and the handful that didn't have not interfered with my ability to edit long term.
In addition, most Wikipedia editors do it as a hobby, or there wouldn't be rules about payment.
As @PamD: said, you seem to be making assumptions that certain things – like working on drafts until they're ready for publication, for example – are a problem.
@Ieusuiarnaut You are very new to Wikipedia, at least as a registered editor. You seem not to understand that the whole thing is indeed "a bizarre labour of love". We editors are here to improve the encyclopedia, by creating and editing articles (though a small minority seem to be here with the sole purpose of getting one article deleted). And recent page creations will tend to be for early-career people, as the long-established notable people in a field should already have articles. Hence many new articles are created for 20-year-old footballers, far fewer for those who've been playing professionally for 10 years. PamD10:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have attached the same Channel 4 section on 3 times, please adjust two of your links. HuffPost on Political matters is 'No Consensus', so that cannot be used to demonstrate notability. That just leaves three 'major sources' left. The BBC is a two minute segment and is just about her talking about related migratory issues, not about her specifically which does not make it useful enough to qualify for an article. The Channel 4 4min segment is fine maybe (I have not really looked at that am being generous) as justification. For The National, the real subject matter of this one is Jonathan Gullis (which would be best on his page) and his claims as the article would not exist on it's own without that, not Zoe Gardner in of herself to justify it as worthy of her article's inclusion (this also applies to the HuffPost). I would only really consider a good source which would be of near noteworthiness is the article entirely on her by Sussex Bylines, but that's another question as to whether or not your accept them as noteworthy. Tweedle (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the reasons given here by others and at the very, very least the "migration expert" title should be removed. This person has not published anything of their own and they don't appear in Google Scholar which should at least be a some sort of a prerequisite for being titled as "expert". Tweedle (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FA
A
GA
